The Duality Between Professional Duality And Ordinary Nonprofessional Morality

Authors Note: This paper is being submitted on the 18th of March 2013 for the winter semester of Medical Law and Ethics section 05.

Ethical dilemmas exist everywhere around us in everyday situations. Something as simple as picking up a piece of trash off the floor to whether you should use a previously written paper from a separate class for a current assignment in this class. It exists in reality and even on television shows. How, then, do people resolve these ethical dilemmas and how do they defend their decisions? Nurse Jackie is a television series impregnated with ethical dilemmas, especially in medical care. In this paper, I will discuss the ethical issues found in the “Tiny Bubbles” episode of Nurse Jackie. I will further discuss the ethical reasoning with support of ethical principles. In addition, I will discuss how patient’s autonomy and non-maleficence principle of bioethics plays a role in decision making. Overall, there was a difficult struggle on the ethical theory of and utilitarianism, with ethical relativism playing a huge factor.

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

Avis et al (2010) state that historically, only occupations such as Doctors, Solicitors, the Clergy and Bank Managers were worthy of the title of being called a “Professional”. However they go on to say that this has changed over time to the point whereby much more diverse groups are describing themselves within the category of being professional to the point that the term becomes meaningless. That said, they do agree that a professional should hold a set of specific skills and knowledge that are gained through a certain amount of training and “should be used for the benefit of society”. Teachers, lecturers and trainers clearly fit within this remit. Scales (2008) lists professionalism as one of the traits of an effective teacher. He goes on the say that professionalism is multi-faceted, citing the way teachers behave, look, the way interact with their students, how they talk and how they prepare and plan their work all form what he believes makes a professional.

There are many ethical dilemmas that occur daily in our hospitals across the world. Not everyone agrees with standards and policies that are required in hospitals or even with the law. If not everyone obeys the law, ethical cases form. In Springfield, Missouri, a holistic nurse got fired for fighting against Cox South hospital policies. Carla Brock has been a nurse at Cox South hospital and not only refused the flu shot, but also refused to wear a mask. She refused due to religious beliefs, she gets short of breath while wearing the mask, and she feels the mask is meant to intimidate and humiliate those who refuse the shot. The ethical question in this case study is to decide if Carla should have been fired for not wearing a mask after refusing the flu shot and what are other potential proposals. The four-way method will separate out what are the truths, consequences, fairness, and character, of this ethical case study.

To argue the first premise, he appeals to common knowledge that doctors hold their occupations because they are more knowledgeable in a medical context on the options for improving health and longevity. With this in mind, he then establishes that individuals who consult physicians do so in order to prolong their life and improve their well-being. By establishing these foundational premises for paternalism in a medical context, Goldman can now argue that given a patient that is determined to be acting out of line with his true values and his actions might result in harm that is severe, certain, and irreversible, it is the physician’s professional to override the patients’ immediate rights in order to preserve that patients’ more long-term desires. But how can the physician determine whether the patient is acting in line with his true values in the case of withholding medical information from the patient?

The concern for morality and ethics cuts across all endeavors of human existence. Focusing particularly on the helping professions – Pastoral care, Counseling, medicine, Psychiatry, Social Work, Law, and Teaching - the need for standard professional guidelines for conduct of practitioners becomes of paramount importance. Competence or knowledge of techniques of therapy is important; but A person who needs to be salvaged, who needs spiritual, psychological, emotional, psychiatric healing or direction would rather prefer to interact with an ethically seasoned” half trained

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Medical ethics and legal issues have been a key topic in medical field for many years now. It is important for medical professionals to understand the importance of the way we care for patients, it is therefore important to be knowledgeable and aware of the medical ethics and legal issues that govern good patient care. Health care professionals must make decisions based on ethical and legal issues to performance their regular duties. However, Medical ethics is not only about avoiding harm to patients. It is rather a norms, values and principles (Ethical theories 2015). Therefore norms, values and principles are intended to govern medical ethical conduct. Ethics is defined as “a standard of behaviour and a concept of right and wrong beyond what the legal consideration is in any given situation”. In another words medical ethics is a discipline that used to handle moral problems coming out the care of patients. Law is another important discipline that often comes together with medical ethics. Law defined as a “rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. Government imply law to keep the society running smoothly and to control behaviour that could threaten public safety. Medical professionals have to often prioritise these terms before making any clinical decision. The following findings will constructively emphasise on medical ethics, its

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.